A new company called Slate Auto — backed by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, among others — just rolled out its first vehicle, a modular truck/SUV so basic it doesn’t come with paint, heated seats, power windows, speakers, aluminum wheels, or even an infotainment screen. And yet, at around $27,000, it’s not exactly cheap. That’s because it’s fully electric, which in my opinion is the wrong powertrain choice for a high-volume “people’s car,” at least right now. Here’s why.
I think going fully electric with a budget-minded vehicle just isn’t the move right now if the goal is super-high volume.
Slate showed me around its headquarters earlier this month, pointing out the fascinating new vehicle it had engineered — a “back to basics” machine missing many of the features most Americans generally expect in a modern car. The whole concept is refreshing given the heavy “trimflation” and elevated MSRPs of modern cars, and as Slate’s rep showed me how spartan its truck was, I couldn’t help but become more and more excited. I have for years believed that modern vehicles have become far too expensive and far too jam-packed with features that the layperson doesn’t need to get to and from work.
And yet, when the Slate rep told me the truck’s price, I couldn’t help but be disappointed.
The Content Per Dollar Ratio Doesn’t Seem Competitive (Depending On Rebate/Tariffs)
Mid-20Ks. Roughly the price of a Subaru Crosstrek.
To be sure, EV incentives would bring the Slate’s price down below $20,000, which is cheap for any new car, but given the precarious nature of the $7,500 new clean-vehicle incentive, it’s possible this new Slate will cost consumers over $27 big ones when it launches in late 2026. And $27+ grand for a car with no paint, no infotainment system, and no radio is just not competitive at all.
Have you seen how much car you get when you buy a $21,895 Chevy Trax or $21,885 Kia Soul? Here’s the Slate’s interior:
And here’s the Trax’s and Soul’s:
Here’s how the Slate comes from the factory, paintless and with only two doors:
And here’s the Trax and the Soul — colorful and door-rich:
Right about now, you’re probably looking at the pictures above thinking: “OK, so those are dirt cheap cars that do have more creature comforts than the Slate, but even if I think the Soul is fun and the Trax is handsome, The Slate looks so much cooler!”
And I agree! But another SUV with plenty off-road-ish cool-factor is the Subaru Crosstrek, which starts at a reasonable $27,230 — right around what the Slate costs sans rebate. And not only does it have four doors, but it comes with standard all-wheel drive, while the Slate is rear-drive only. Plus, look at everything else it gets in the interior:
We also have to talk about the other small pickup truck built by an American company: The Ford Maverick. Though the 2024 model cost about the same as the Slate, the 2025 model is now up to $29,285 for the hybrid and $29,860 for the turbo four.
That’s a bit more change, though the Maverick is clearly at least five grand more car, with the turbo four-cylinder coming with an eight-speed automatic that will help Iget the truck to 60 mph in under 6.5 seconds compared to the Slate’s 8 seconds (which is about the same as the 38 MPG hybrid Maverick’s 0-60). But it’s not the acceleration that matters, it’s the standard four doors (which is huge to U.S. consumers) and other standard content.
The Maverick looks fantastic, it’s got power windows and an infotainment system, plus it’s got double the towing capacity and a little more payload capacity than the Slate, and all still under 30 big-ones.
So it’s pretty clear that, especially if that EV rebate goes away and this slate costs $27,000 or something in between, the consumer is getting way, way less content per dollar when compared with other budget cars out there.
That said, some of the cars mentioned above — the Trax, Soul and Maverick — are built in other countries, and given the threat of heavy tariffs on imported cars, it’s possible that these vehicles could see a price hike that would make them pricer than the America-built Slate. The Crosstrek, though, is built in the U.S.
But especially if the tariffs end up being just a threat, and deletion of the EV rebate becomes more than a threat, then reality is that, given all the cost cutting, the Slate won’t really be a cheap car, it’ll just be a cheap EV. And whether someone at the bottom of the new-car market is willing to give up standard features and pay more money just to have an EV, I’m not so sure, especially given the challenges associated with EV still to this day. Let’s get into that.
A 150-Mile-Range EV Isn’t Really The Right ‘People’s Car’ For America
When Slate set out to build this truck, the goal was to create a true People’s Car — something budget-friendly for the masses. The vision was a “back to basics, only the essentials truck, and the narrative did outline low-cost solutions for suspensions and minimal-size battery that gets 150 miles of range,” said Eric Keipper, head of engineering at Slate.
He told me the goal was a “Minimal size battery that allows us to optimize for the customer’s commuting needs.” As for a gasoline motor, he said that was “not a consideration,” going on to say: “Literally the first drawing that I put on the whiteboard was how we package the battery.”
“If you’re gonna bring a new car to market, it’s gonna be a BEV,” he told me, saying it’s the right solution given where the industry is going and all the improvements in charging infrastructure.
I respectfully disagree.
I think there are a few problems with choosing an EV as a people’s car in 2025. The first has to do with the political climate and the very possible removal of EV rebates, which will only amplify the cost issue: even a “cheap” EV is expensive when compared to a similarly equipped gas car (or even a hybrid, in some cases).
Second, 150 miles isn’t enough range.
I realize that most commutes are much shorter, but that simply does not matter to many consumers. Car purchases are not rational, and proof of that requires looking no further than the current crop of EVs on the road; think about how many people buy 300+ mile Teslas and Rivians and Hyundais — they’re all probably spending over $10,000 extra and adding over 1,000 pounds of weight to their car just to have some extra range they rarely need.
Look at the prices of 2019-2021 BMW i3 Rexes versus BMW i3 BEVs — both of them offer about 150 miles of range, and most people with the range extender pretty much never use it (me included). And yet range extender-equipped i3s are far more valuable than otherwise equivalent fully electric i3s. People want a backup. Whether that’s in the form of a gas generator or excess battery capacity, I truly think the average person — especially if they live in a cold climate, where 150 miles might actually be 120 — sees a 150-mile BEV as a second car, not an only car.
And when we’re talking about the bottom of the consumer market, the idea that budget-oriented folks are going to buy two cars, with the second helping fill in their brand new EV’s practicality gaps, is a bit silly.
Beyond that is the fact that many people shopping at the bottom of the market do not have a single-family home in which to charge their car. Apartment and condo-dwellers often have to park outside or in a poorly-equipped parking garage. For them, a 150-mile EV is problematic, as it likely means having to charge multiple times a week at a public charger.
And that’s its own issue: charging infrastructure and utility rates aren’t ideal. I live in LA, California, where EV charging infrastructure is better than that of 99% of the United States. And yet, it can still be a big pain in the arse. Of course, Slate will use the NACS plug that presumably works with Tesla Superchargers, so finding a charger shouldn’t be too bad, but the cost thing is still a concern.
Juice from public fast-chargers — which many people living in apartments would have to rely on — can often be more expensive than gasoline on a per-mile basis. I found that out when driving the Rivian R1S to Las Vegas; at one charger, I paid 66 cents per kWh! But even at a more reasonable 40 cents per kWh, if this Slate manages a good 3.4 mi/kWh on the freeway; that’s $4 to go 34 miles. Given current gas prices in California, that’d cost about the same as gasoline for a 41 MPG gas vehicle. You’d spend less money filling up a new 56 MPG Prius, which you can get in the upper $20K range (of course EVs are easier to maintain, but still).
It’s worth pointing out that Nissan currently sells a 150-mile range car for about $29,000 — the Leaf S. While that’s pricier than the Slate, and it’s not a truck, it does have four doors and basic creature comforts. Nissan sells a modest 11,000-ish Leafs a year, and some of those are the 212-mile variant.
This Seems Like A Hard Sell, But Then There Is The ‘Cool Factor’
Let’s just imagine if Slate hadn’t chosen an electric powertrain, but instead a gasoline one. In theory, it’d be cheaper to make than the Ford Maverick or even the Chevy Trax or Kia Soul (obviously, these established companies have economies of scale, so it’s not quite that simple). Imagine an $18,000 pickup truck/SUV that looks as badass as the Slate? I’d walk straight to the dealership, realize that Slate doesn’t have dealerships and is selling straight-to-consumer, and order one online immediately.
Toyota offers a truck that’s not that different from the Slate in that it was built with extreme cost-saving in mind. It’s called the Toyota Hilux Champ, and the base price for the gasoline, five-speed manual (optional six-speed auto) equipped truck is just over $13,000!:
Granted, this thing is built in Thailand is only comes “70 percent finished,” per Road & Track’s interview with Toyota, but still. Even at, say, 18 grand I’d find that compelling and, importantly, usable.
Then there’s the concept of extended-range EVs, EREVs — which, along with a regular hybrid, make most sense, even over a gas one like the Champ above. To me, an EREV Slate would make for a more compelling high-volume “people’s car” than this BEV. You could cut the battery size from 52.7 kWh to 25 kWh, and offer an EV range of about 80 miles, which is plenty for commuters. And when those 80 miles run out, you can just run it on gasoline, making the vehicle palatable for far, far more users than a 150 mile BEV — and at about the same cost.
In 2022, when Slate started this project, the regulatory environment was different than it is now. The sky seemed to be falling for gas cars, and there was very much a “Go BEV or else” attitude in the air globally. I can sympathize with automakers on that; whereas in other nations like China, there has been a firm and united front on electrification, things in the western world are yo-yoing back and forth to no end. It’s challenging, but in a way it means you have to design a vehicle that can weather uncertainty.
And it seems to me that Slate is relying too heavily on the EV rebate sticking around and tariffs cranking up the prices of other cars in the segment. Because if it’s between even a $3-5K pricier Ford Maverick — which comes with paint, an infotainment system, power windows, and a 120-year old company reputation — and a bare-bones, two-door Slate that can only go 150 miles on a charge, it’s pretty obvious which one is the better “people’s car.”
I asked Slate about this. Specifically, I asked its team: “If the tax credit disappears, what about the new Slate do you think will make it more compelling than a similarly-priced gasoline car with significantly more features? (i.e. Ford Maverick).” Here was their response:
If incentives go away, Slate will remain well-positioned in the U.S. with a strong proposition of value, safety, and customization. Slate’s commitment to American manufacturing is foundational to our business, and we are on track to a 2026 start of production, thanks to our highly experienced team and top industry partners.
The “customization” bit is one that I’m going to end on here, because even if a bargain EV doesn’t really make sense as a volume “people’s car” on paper, you can’t ignore the cool-factor.
And while I do think the Slate’s design is a little Ford Bronco Sport-ish, it is cool, and the fact that you can add features later instead of having to tick the King Ranch/Longhorn/LX box at initial purchase is extra cool.
I don’t think the Slate, as currently configured and priced, is going to become the next Volkswagen Beetle or Ford Model T, but I do think its DIY strategy for adding features, its cool interchangeable roofs that let you change body styles, its overall rugged and boxy shape, and its simplicity are deeply compelling and charming, and it will be those intangibles that could bring Slate to more roadways than pure logic might lead you to think.
I don’t know that people looking for a cheap car as their only form of transportation are going to be the ones behind the wheel, but especially if the rebate sticks around, folks like me who have another car and space at home to charge might not be able to resist a cool, brand new, two-door, fuel-saving commuter-pickup for $19 grand, even if you could get a used 300+ mile Hyundai Ioniq 5 for the same price.
UPDATE: I suspected this might upset EV diehards, so I’ll just note: I’m not saying the Slate isn’t a badass vehicle (I say the opposite), nor am I saying it’s not going to sell in significant volumes. I’m saying that — in part because of its powertrain and two door design — it faces significant challenges if it wants to become a true people’s car (like a Corolla or old Beetle). This is hardly a hot take for 2025, though battery developments could totally change the calculus. Also, I could be entirely wrong. Also, note that most outlets are reporting that the Slate is expected to cost over $27,000, so that has been adjusted accordingly.
UPDATE 2: It’s also worth noting that, no, I’m not suggesting that developing a new ICE from scratch would be the move, here. In fact, that’d be prohibitively expensive for a startup. Also, some have mentioned that, though the federal tax credit may go away, states might offer a tax credit of their own. I think that’s great, especially since that tax credit should also apply to EREVs, which are currently more palatable to the masses than BEVs. Another thing that’s fairly straightforward is the reality that “electric” is a buzzword that’s pretty much necessary to get startup funding. Lucid, Rivian, Canoo, Slate, etc. — lots of companies that have received investment because electric is the hot newness, even if they’ve all struggled to make a profit.
Thank you everyone for your comments! There were some very passionate, sometimes heated ones! While a few folks let that passion lead them to insults, by and large there’s been great discourse between folks who think the Slate works as a volume people’s car and those who don’t.
Thank you all for reading and for participating in valuable discussions about the current state/the future of automobiles! None of us are oracles, so we can only opine on some of these issues, but sharing knowledge and perspectives is great, and makes this the best car community on the web.
Thank you!
I had an absolute bottom-rung base model Chevy Trax as a rental earlier this month and you know what? It was a really good little car that I could totally live with every day. The Slate truck is really exciting to me but let’s see where it really ends up (or if it ends up materializing at all).
Who needs clickbait when David can just drop one of his hot takes?
I would honestly consider this if it had a small gas engine…. The bare bones interior suits me as I daily drive a no power anything 59 Edsel. I differently think they missed the mark not having a gas engine…hybrid at the least.
Of course I love the basic goodness and simplicity of the Hilux Champ, and have posted about it many times in these pages. But it’s not for sale in the U.S., nor is it ever likely to be in my lifetime sadly. I’ve been googling on and off for a few months, and still can’t figure a reasonable/practical/cost-effective way to buy one in Mexico and drive it here in Southern California legally/indefinitely/affordably… if someone’s got any ideas, I’m all ears. 🙂
Also, while I totally understand the comparisons between the Slate truck and vehicles like the Subaru Crosstrek, Ford Maverick, etc… it’s not quite an apple-to-apples comparison because (of course) the Slate is an EV and they are not (well, the Maverick can be had as a hybrid, but with a very tiny battery for very limited electric drive).
So, while illustrative re: value-for-money propositions, the Slate vs Hilux/Crosstrek/Maverick comparisons aren’t exactly happening on a level playing field for the reasons mentioned above. Which is not to say they’re not useful… if the federal tax credits are killed by the time Slates are being built for customers (2027 at the earliest I’d imagine, so the next-to-last-year of the current administration) and/or a potential Slate customer doesn’t qualify for the tax credit (like me) then a base Slate truck will cost them most of $27,500. at which point it seems considerably less amazing. It still has some appeal at that price, but in terms of value for dollar, it’s less attractive (than paying $20K for the it).
Which is not to say that I’d ask for my deposit back… I’m leaving it there for as long as it takes to see what happens before they’re shipping, just as I’ve done with the Telo EV minitruck. 🙂
As someone in Michigan, not having AWD is a dealbreaker. How about we throw in a 1.6L that drives the front wheels and can generate electricity with the starter. Electric propulsion in the rear but gas for the front is what BYD does for their AWD. This would work great for me because I would almost never have to use gasoline in the summer.
Then give it a 240V plug in the back that I can power my house with and you have yourself a sale.
I’ve lived in Michigan for almost 30 years now and have been AWD free the entire time. Yes, I have serious winter tread on all four wheels, but I’ve found that front wheel drive is just fine.
I lived at Tahoe for a while with a front wheel Ford probe GT. If you know how to drive in snow and have the right tires you don’t need AWD or chains.
I have no problem driving FWD on snows, but this truck is RWD only.
And folks in the snowbelt drove for decades before FWD became the norm, using snow tires and chains. AWD is nice to have, and given the choice I’d opt for it (and it doesn’t even snow where I live) but the lack of it wouldn’t keep me from buying a FWD or RWD vehicle of any kind.
Adding vehicle-to-load hardware to the Slate would, of course, drive up the price. I could certainly imagine the aftermarket (or Slate itself eventually) offering such a thing, but the Slate NOT having some features is why it costs like $10K+ LESS than other full-EV small crossovers. You have to do without SOMEthing to get the price down.
There is no alternate reality where I’d even look in the direction of a Soul, Crosstrek, Trax, or Champ, but the Slate has me very interested – and I’m an ICE diehard. It could never be my only car, but there would be nothing better for commuting.
Counterpoint, states have their own incentives(including California), and I suspect if the Federal incentives go away the CARB following ones may bump up their own to compensate, maybe not but does soften the blow there a bit.
Also I can see a big portion of their customer base being fleets, look at when the Maverick launched, people were lined up unable to order them but then I’m driving by Autozone and they have 3 shiny new ones as service vehicles within months of launch. The Slate will be even better for shops like that as they have even less maintenance than the Mavericks. Even U-Haul and Home Depot could stock them for rentals, right down to not having a stereo to worry about being stolen from the lot. And I’m sure Bezos could do the same thing he did for Rivian in securing some big orders for Slate for fleets, probably could get them through the first couple years if the incentives go away until the next regime change and they come back.
Also also, from a production standpoint, sure for existing auto makers, throwing in an engine is easy peasy, they have engines and transmissions already, have done all the legwork on emmissions, for a startup, sourcing and testing and certifying an engine is a LOT, and even with all their experience we still see legacy automakers keep f’ing up new engines, how many recalls has Ford had lately? (have you recalled a Foooord, lately!). And of course the HUGE reason not to is the footprint rule, at that size the Slate would need to get like 80mpg to not get penalized for every unit sold.
Agreed on state incentives (which would also apply to EREVs). Also agreed on fleets.
Certainly developing a ground-up engine was never something I’d suggest; that’s one of the things that killed Elio. Far too expensive.
The footprint thing wouldn’t be a huge concern with an EREV, which I think shouldn’t be a short two-door anyway if we want it to truly be a people’s car.
Would it still be considered an EREV if there was an engine that drove the front wheels?
It would not.
Developing an engine would be a terrible plan. Purchasing an engine from an existing automaker would be much more practical.
Remember that everyone above the least qualified buyer can also buy these.
I think this thing looks fun and different. I can afford a nicer car, but I’d rather try something new and interesting.
I could afford a nicer car when I bought my 05 xB, but I wanted it because it was weird (and awesome) and worked fine for my needs at the time.
The price makes this a reasonable alternative to a Kei truck for homeowner-level runs to the garden center or Home Depot, especially for someone with teenagers who can give them this thing knowing they can take it back if they need to haul something. It may be more expensive than a used car for the kid, but may add utility to the fleet.
Totally!
Sensible words Anoos!
All except the bit about Kei trucks as an option, since where I live (CA) you really can’t legally register/use one as a daily driver (though I’ve seen a few with CA plates at car shows, perhaps via the show-and-display classification, which precludes daily use).
The more I read about this vehicle and think about it, I agree with David.
If 1/4 of American households do not have garages (73% listed above by someone do), that’s 90 million people, or conservatively at 3 people per household, 30 million households.
I’m guessing these folks, like me, have no garage space or any other space to charge, yet they would be the likely audience for an inexpensive vehicle.
I wouldn’t consider an electric vehicle with no place to charge it, and I’m fairly well off. Imagine someone who’s in an even less favorable position to do so.
This is a second or third vehicle. I wanted to like it, but it makes little sense, like a Tata Nano pickup or something.
Indeed! And yet, I think it’s cool!
This is a truck for people who do truck things. Those people have entire buildings where they can store these.
This isn’t a car for people who live in apartments.
Toyota could nip this in the bud by selling the Hilux Champ in the USA but its Toyota so they wont.
They literally can’t, even if they tried.
You don’t think they could polish it up a bit and sell it for 20k? 25k even with the brand behind it?
If Toyota’s got up into the $20-25K range for an improved Hilux Champ, it might encroach on their upcoming Stout pickup, which is supposed to slot in under the Tacoma in terms of capability and price. Dunno when it will be released though… Youtube vids about it have been up for a while now, so maybe never? 🙁
I doubt that I ever will, but I’d really like to know exactly how badly a regular (i.e.: short wheelbase) Hilux Champ preforms in all the usual U.S. crash tests. Is it truly a deathtrap intended only for sale in Mexico, southeast Asia, etc… or might it do OK, perhaps even as well as some cars already for sale in America?
I dunno, but I’d like to know.
Oh man, this article makes valid points, while simultaneously missing the mark so hard it’s incredible.
Of course this Slate will never be “the” people’s car. Not because of its drivetrain, range or price, nor its features or styling. It will never be the ‘People’s Car’ because It’s a f*cking two-door pickup truck!
Only an ex-Jalopnik writer could look at a stripped-out commercial fleet vehicle with TWO DOORS and think, “This could be the perfect car for America”. Turning it into an ICE vs EV debate is even more bizarre.
A “people’s car” is supposed to be a competent, affordable vehicle that can transport an entire family and their things in comfort and dignity, designed with the best feature set and value proposition available. That probably means CarPlay, and definitely means 4 doors. Basically a regular old affordable family car. Good examples would be the Toyota Corolla, Chevy Trax, or even the Ford Maverick.
Taking this article at face value is akin to wondering why the Ford Courier or Datsun pickup were never lauded as direct competitors to the Beatle or Pinto. Sure, maybe they cost the same, but the use case for their original buyers were totally different.
Yes, some people owned Datsun mini trucks as personal vehicles just like they will with this Slate, but to evaluate the vehicle solely on that premise is ridiculous.
David misses the point completely with this. For a smart person he can be quite dumb at times 😉
I came here to say the exact same thing.
I’m not surprised a few EV fans are upset and resorting to insults , as writing anything that isn’t effusive about EVs usually goes this way, but while I myself am a huge EV fan, I just tell it like I see it.
I think this vehicle could sell OK, but a 2-door EV with roll down windows and 150mi range for $27K has limitations as a People’s Car. Hardly a hot take!
The lack of four doors is mentioned numerous times in the piece. It’s one of the main downsides of this truck, and clearly a cut that needed to be made to keep this EV relatively affordable.
I recently purchased a 2020 electric Mini Cooper. I love the thing to death and enjoy every minute I’m driving it. It fits my life situation to a T.
That said, I have two other cars in my household of three, so there’s usually something bigger, doorier, or with longer range when I need it.
That said, I love me some low range, two door, EV fun,
You mention it, but have you really thought about it?
There is no way Slate simply ‘cut’ the rear doors to save money. Releasing a 2-door only truck in 2025 was a deliberate, carefully weighed choice. Can you imagine if Honda just decided they wanted to undercut the Corolla, and only sold 2 door Civics? That would be insanity, they would be choosing to eliminate an entire demographic of customers.
I don’t think the lack of doors really moves the cost needle that much. There are plenty of cheap cars like the Mitsubishi Mirage that manage to fit 4 doors into the budget. Buying the accessory topper and jump seats will actually make the Slate worse value compared to the Equinox EV. If they wanted to compete there, they would have just designed a 4-door in the first place.
No, this Slate is clearly a commercial vehicle first, ‘lifestyle SUV’ second. Im really not sure where you are picking up that this thing is supposed to be the new ‘People’s Car?’ I have been all over your articles and the marketing material, and I just don’t see it. I thought the teaser of the 3 street-parked Slates wrapped in liveries for fake service companies was pretty explicit regarding the intended market.
As a fleet vehicle, It will compete with the Maverick, some other small or EV trucks, as well as the spaces vacated by the Promaster City and Transit Connect.
As a lifestyle SUV, it will be a sort of low-cost, urban alternative to vehicles like the 2 door Wrangler, Ineos Grenadier, and LR Defender.
Reducing the number of closures does indeed provide a significant cost savings (if they could have made a stripped-down electric Maverick at the same price, you bet they would have), but that’s not the point. The point here is straightforward: Among the reasons this thing isn’t set up to be an ideal, high-volume people’s car are: the limitations of its powertrain (and our infrastructure), its price:features ratio, the fact that it’s got two doors.
It’s a fairly lukewarm and measured take.
“I’m really not sure where you are picking up that this thing is supposed to be the new ‘People’s Car?”
^This is information I received directly from the manufacturer.
I think that an EREV option like what the Scouts are going to have would be absolutely PERFECT for a car like this.
Sell that for $27k, get to that 300+ range with gas engine, and now this becomes a car with a vastly wider potential audience. 150 mile EV truck for $20k has a lot of potential uses, mostly fleet applications I would think. But the competition for a $20k truck EV….. is a used EV or Hybrid with more miles and more features.
Yes, more complicated technically however the Chinese appear to be running away with this option for many vehicles.
Figure out a cheap and easy way to get 80% of the way to EV independence with the EREV bridge for longer trips, and now we are talking.
The problem is, add the EREV and you just described a $40k truck. Now the CAFE foot print rules apply. Just buy a Maverick already.
An EREV wouldn’t cost nearly that much more with the battery savings.
This thing with an EREV would be epic, and give it great potential as a “People’s Car.””
An EREV would blow up the whole point of this. A significant reason that pickup trucks have gotten so huge is crash testing requirements… and so much of THAT is driven by managing that huge lump of metal right in the front of the vehicle.
Even a tiny ICE blows up the complexity of this.
A small ICE wouldn’t be so bad. Package it like the BMW i3 did — a nice, compact unit in the rear. There’s plenty of space currently being taken up by that DeDion Tube’s motion envelope; swap in an independent suspension, and maybe you could fit a little 1.0-liter.
It can be done, and it’d be pretty badass.
No, just no. EV all the way here. Starting a company and developing a gas motor engine car makes absolutely no sense. EVs are slowly become required in a lot of countries. On top of that cities are starting to ban gas cars in city centers to improve air quality immensely. The future of gas cars is extremely limited.
You are looking at easily spending way over $100 million dollars to develop an engine, go through emission certifications, NVM analysis and tuning, etc, etc. The ability to recoup that money for a low volume startup is pretty well zero. Also add the cost of developing a transmission or generator setup on top of the $100 million.
The CAFE footprint of the Slate is also very small. Assuming a track of around 63 inches, the footprint of the Slate works out to approximately 48 square feet. At that footprint the CAFE fuel requirement is 40-43MPG for a gas fueled version. That would a challenging engineering target (read expensive.) Missing this rating would not be an option as Slate must meet CAFE fleet averages.
The footprint rule for vehicles has enabled and encouraged oversized trucks and cars for years. A larger footprint = lower CAFE requirements. It is why Ford dropped the small Ecosport in North America – it was not able to get good enough mileage with its small footprint and it was actually hurting Ford’s overall CAFE rating. So they dropped it like a hot potato to help the average fleet CAFE rating. So the inexpensive, gas fueled, small, energy efficient, large selling (way over 100,000 units per year was forecast) Ecosport was dropped because of the footprint rule. So the footprint rule actually made things way worse for the environment and deprived folks of an inexpensive vehicle option.
In no way does it make economic sense for a startup to develop a car that uses gas nowadays.
Bingo.
The reports I am reading from the Shanghai Auto Show are sobering. It is like the old “Japanese Schoolgirl Report” from Wired… where these people were the canary in the coal mine of new, hot tech.
There are electric cars being presented at the Shanghai Auto Show THIS YEAR that have the potential to replace practically every car sold in the US at a substantial cost discount. Virtually every legacy automaker who isn’t all-in on EVs is going to be left in the dust.
Hybrids are a time-wasting distraction. It would be even worse for someone starting out right now. It would be like a new horse buggy company starting up in 1920.
Plenty of companies have gone all-in on BEVs — Rivian, Canoo, Lucid, etc etc. None of them has had much success making a profit. Even larger, established automakers have lost ungodly sums on EVs.
Hybrids are the answer in the U.S. And in fact, I suggest that even Rivian and Lucid consider EREV technology because it would help them with their two main goals: 1. profitability (since their cars would become more palatable) and 2. overall emissions reduction/environmental benefit. (I realize they’ll never do it, since the two companies built their brand around a powertrain technology).
This will probably get lost in the sea of bogus complaints about the article (which is absolutely correct, BTW), but I’d love to see a more in-depth look at the state of using non-Tesla EVs with Tesla chargers. My brother just bought an EV and tried to charge at a Tesla station, but it said it was for Teslas only. What’s up with that? Will they all eventually work with non-Teslas, or is the charger situation still a “show up and hope it works with your car” thing, even with Tesla’s infrastructure?
It’s complicated. There are two main types of Tesla charging stations.
(1) Tesla destination chargers. They are 240V. For those chargers you need a NACS to J1772 adapter. No NACS to CCS adapter will ever work at a destination charger. You must use a NACS to J1772 adapter with destination chargers.
(2) Tesla superchargers. They are high power DC chargers. You need a NACS to CCS adapter for these. Then you must get over the following hurdles.
(a) You can only use V3 Tesla Superchargers or the soon to roll out V4 Superchargers. V2 and V1 Superchargers will never support charging non-Tesla cars.
(b) You absolutely need a NACS to CCS adapter. The NACS to J1772 adapter will never work at Superchargers. This means any EV with only a J1772 plug can never charge at a Supercharger.
(c) The manufacturer of your EV must have an agreement with Tesla to use their Superchargers with NACS to CCS adapters. No agreement = not gonna work.
(d) If a car company now makes NACs native cars, it does NOT mean that older CCS cars will work with Superchargers. For example, the 2025 Ioniq 5 is now NACS and could charge at superchargers from release in January 2025. My 2024 Ioniq 5 could not charge at superchargers in February with a NACS CCS adapter. (I tried out of curiousity.) Tesla/Hyundai announced late March 2025 that they now support 2024 and earlier Ioniq 5s with NACs to CCS adapters. I have not tested this yet, but I will before my next road trip.
(e) If you have the option to use a high power DC CCS charging station ((over 100kwh charge rate) or a Supercharger, you might want to use the CCS charging station. My Ioniq 5 will max out at 100kwh at a Supercharger station. While at a CCS station I can max out at 238kwh. So CCS stations can charge up my Ioniq 5 much faster than the Tesla Supercharger. As a result, I still prefer and target CCS chargers, but it is nice to have the option to use a Supercharger.
Does your head hurt yet? With time this will be a non-issue. But right now it is complicated.
Oof, thanks for the explanation. Clearly even with NACS the charging situation is still challenging right now.
Very valid points, and the charging infrastructure is certainly a challenge.
One additional thing to consider, though: BEVs are much simpler machines than hybrids or ICE cars, with virtually zero maintenance required other than rotating tires.
If their goal, as stated by the brand, is to make the simplest, most reliable car possible, BEV makes a lot of sense. If the components are sound (as they seem to be), with so little to go wrong, the owner could potentially drive for years without having to do anything to the car other than charging.
This truck doesn’t need charging infrastructure. It will be charged at locations controlled by the owner 100% of the time.
I had a similar comment on The Drive’s official announcement article.
The Corolla Hybrid starts at $24,000, and you get 4 doors and 400miles of range and 50mpg. It’s clear that all the numerous sacrifices present here in the Slate were at the altar of BEV, and I agree completely that this is a ridiculous proposition.
Even at the fanciful price of $20,000, what kind of volume could Slate realistically expect? Boutique sales and hobbyists? Who’s left as their competition at that point, the dang Roxor?
The old BEV adage continues: still too many sacrifices, still too much money. Whoever all agreed early on that EREV or HEV wasn’t in the cards should now be laughed out of the room
This is not a replacement for a Corolla.
Indeed, and that’s the main point of my piece: It is not going to be a people’s car replacement, even if that was the intent.
Doesn’t mean it won’t sell in decent volumes, though! They’ll be great second cars and fleet machines I bet.
I must admit… this is the last place on the internet I expected to read people even considering it being a “people’s car”. It is not a car, it is a work truck. A good, old fashioned work truck designed to do truck things that I though everyone here was in love with.
The have the potential to sell the hell out of these things. A RV array of not overwhelming size will charge this. This could potentially bring motorized transport to edges of the world that has never seen it.
Totally; I think it could be a great fleet truck and second-vehicle.
I agree with those who are suggesting this would be a good urban fleet delivery vehicle. That also happens to be a volume market and one that would skew the ‘personalization’ concept to ‘branding’ and upfitting for different business purposes.
As for those thinking it should be more aerodynamic, get over it. This will likely rarely ever see speeds high enough to fight the air. Using aero to increase claimed range is hypothetical in something that will be just stop and going at urban speeds. Speaking of which, I didn’t see any mention of regen braking.